«上一篇/Previous Article|本期目录/Table of Contents|下一篇/Next Article»

《心理学探新》[ISSN:1003-5184/CN:36-1228/B]

期数:

 2024年04期

页码:

 319-326

栏目:

 

出版日期:

 2024-09-30

文章信息/Info

Title:

 Early Cognitive Study on Instrumental Typicality in Mandarin Thematic Hierarchy

文章编号:

1003-5184(2024)04-0319-08

作者:

 李金妹 方敬文

 (天津师范大学外国语学院,天津 300382)

Author(s):

 Li Jinmei Fang Jingwen

 (Foreign Language College,Tianjin Normal University,Tianjin 300382)

关键词:

 题元层级;  变化盲视;  非典型工具;  事件认知

Keywords:

 Thematic Hierarchy;  change blindness;  atypical instruments;  event cognition

分类号:

 B842.5

DOI:

 -

文献标识码:

 A

摘要:

 目前学界关于事件成分在认知/概念层面的结构性表征的研究主要关注英语母语者,故而缺少事件认知的跨语言相似性的证据。在汉语和英语表层编码主语偏好不同的前提下,基于汉语为母语的3岁和5岁儿童在语言和认知层面提供的实验证据,主要探究致使运动事件中各事件成分的凸显度排序是否表现出和英语相似的题元层级,以及工具的典型性是否会影响工具成分的凸显度。研究发现:(1)在图片描述任务中,作为对照组的成人比儿童提供的信息量更丰富。其次,被试对各语义角色的提及频率排序为:受事>非典型工具>目标>典型工具,儿童对施事的提及频率并不高。此外,成人和儿童都更倾向于提及非典型工具而不是典型工具。(2)在变化盲视任务中,儿童被试能够非常敏锐并准确地感知到施事的变化,典型工具的凸显度低于受事和目标,表现出和英语相似的题元层级,并与语言层面的事件表征相映射。最后,儿童对非典型工具变化的感知准确性显著高于典型工具。

Abstract:

 Research on the structured representation of event components at the perceptual/conceptual level has primarily focused on English native speakers,lacking cross-linguistic evidence to substantiate similarities in event cognition.Given the diverse language-specific encoding preferences about subjects observed between Mandarin and English,we draw on evidence from Mandarin-speaking 3-year-olds and 5-year-olds to examine whether the salience of each event component conforms to the asymmetry predicted by the Thematic Hierarchy,a ranking formulated based on English,and whether the typicality of Instruments would pose an effect on the salience of Instruments.In a picture description task,adults,a control group,were overall more informative than children.Notably,children did not necessarily mention Agents frequently.The order of frequency in mentioning other semantic roles is Patient > Atypical Instrument > Goal > Typical Instrument.Interestingly,all age groups preferred to mention Atypical Instruments rather than Typical Instruments.In a change blindness task,children detected changes in Agents overall precisely,and perceived the changes to Patients more precisely than Goals and Typical Instruments.This behavior mirrored the pattern observed in the Thematic Hierarchy of English.Besides,the accuracy of detecting changes to Atypical Instruments was markedly higher than that of Typical Instruments.

参考文献/References

 陈昌来.(1998).论现代汉语“工具”成分在话语中的隐现.山西师大学报(社会科学版),25(1),53-56,96.
李金妹.(2021).因果关系事件语义学:事件融合视角.暨南大学出版社.
卢英顺.(2005).认知图景与句法,语义成分.复旦学报(社会科学版),(3),197-202.
梅德明.(1995).普遍语法与“原则:参数理论”.外国语(上海外国语大学学报),4,17-23.
吴继光.(2003).现代汉语的用事成分与工具范畴.华中师范大学出版社.
徐默凡.(2004).现代汉语工具范畴的认知研究.复旦大学出版社.
Brown,P.M.,& Dell,G.S.(1987).Adapting production to comprehension:The explicit mention of instruments.Cognitive Psychology,19(4),441-472.
Baker,M.C.(1997).Thematic Roles and Syntactic Structure.In L.Haegeman(Eds.),Elements of Grammar:Handbook in Generative Syntax(pp.73-137).Dordrecht:Springer Netherlands.
Bunger,A.,Skordos,D.,Trueswell,J.C.,& Papafragou,A.(2016).How children and adults encode causative events cross-linguistically:Implications for language production and attention.Language,Cognition and Neuroscience,31(8),1015-1037.
Dowty,D.(1991).Thematic proto-roles and argument selection.Language,67(3),547-619.
Gergely,G.,& Csibra,G.(2003).Teleological reasoning in infancy:The naive theory of rational action.Trends in Cognitive Sciences,7(7),287-292.
Gibbs Jr.,R.W.(2005).Embodiment and cognitive science.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Grigoroglou,M.,& Papafragou,A.(2016).Are children flexible speakers?Effects of typicality and listener needs in children’s event descriptions.In A.D.Papafragou,D.Grodner,& J.C.T.Mirman(Eds.),Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society,Recognizing and Representing Events.Philadelphia,PA,USA.
Grigoroglou,M.,& Papafragou,A.(2019a).Interactive contexts increase informativeness in children’s referential communication.Developmental Psychology,55(5),951.
Grigoroglou,M.,& Papafragou,A.(2019b).Children’s(and adults’)production adjustments to generic and particular listener needs.Cognitive Science,43(10),e12790.
Hafri,A.,Papafragou,A.,& Trueswell,J.C.(2013).Getting the gist of events:Recognition of two-participant actions from brief displays.Journal of Experimental Psychology:General,142(3),880.
Jackendoff,R.S.(1990).Semantic structures.Cambridge,MA:MIT Press.
Jackendoff,R.S.(1996).The architecture of the linguistic-spatial interface.In Language and Space(pp.1-30).Cambridge:The MIT Press.
Leslie,A.M.,& Keeble,S.(1987).Do six-month-old infants perceive causality?Cognition,25(3),265-288.
Levin,B.,& Hovav,M.R.(2005).Argument realization(Vol.10).Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Levelt,W.J.(1999).Producing spoken language:A blueprint of the speaker.The Neurocognition of Language,83-122.
Lockridge,C.B.,& Brennan,S.E.(2002).Addressees’ needs influence speakers’ early syntactic choices.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,9(3),550-557.
McDaniel,D.,McKee,C.,& Garrett,M.F.(2010).Children’s sentence planning:Syntactic correlates of fluency variations.Journal of Child Language,37(1),59-94.
Papafragou,A.,Massey,C.,& Gleitman,L.(2006).When English proposes what Greek presupposes:The cross-linguistic encoding of motion events.Cognition,98(3),B75-B87.
Piaget,J.(2017).The child’s conception of physical causality.London:Routledge.
Rensink,R.A.,O’regan,J.K.,& Clark,J.J.(1997).To see or not to see:The need for attention to perceive changes in scenes.Psychological Science,8(5),368-373.
Rissman,L.,van Putten,S.,& Majid,A.(2022).Evidence for a shared instrument prototype from English,Dutch,and German.Cognitive Science,46(5),e13140.
Rissman,L.,& Majid,A.(2019).Thematic roles:Core knowledge or linguistic construct?Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,26(6),1850-1869.
R Core Team.(2022).R:A language and environment for statistical computing.Vienna,Austria:R Foundations for Statistical Computing.
Schank,R.C.,& Abelson,R.P.(2013).Scripts,plans,goals,and understanding:An inquiry into human knowledge structures.Hove:Psychology Press.
Schneider,W.,Eschman,A.,& Zuccolotto,A.(2002).E-prime user’s guide.Pittsburgh,PA:Psychology Software Tools Inc.
Simons,D.J.,& Ambinder,M.S.(2005).Change blindness:Theory and consequences.Current Directions in Psychological Science,14(1),44-48.
Stavans,M.,& Baillargeon,R.(2018).Four-month-old infants individuate and track simple tools following functional demonstrations.Developmental Science,21(1),e12500.
Trueswell,J.C.,& Papafragou,A.(2010).Perceiving and remembering events cross-linguistically:Evidence from dual-task paradigms.Journal of Memory and Language,63(1),64-82.
?nal,E.,Richards,C.,Trueswell,J.C.,& Papafragou,A.(2021).Representing agents,patients,goals and instruments in causative events:A cross-linguistic investigation of early language and cognition.Developmental Science,24(6),e13116.

备注/Memo

备注/Memo:

 基金项目:天津市哲学社会科学规划重点项目“工具因果关系事件的理论模型构建及汉语表征研究”(TJYY22-009)。
通信作者:李金妹,E-mail:jinmeili2010@163.com。

常用功能

更新日期/Last Update:  2024-09-30